PDA

View Full Version : State Republican Convention


sholling
02-21-2009, 12:22 PM
I've been asked to move this... The state Republican convention (http://www.cagop.org/events/) is going on this weekend and Republican leaders are in full panic mode after the budget sellout. They know their base is POed enough to vote democrat in the next election just to punish them and they already have 2-3 members of the senate facing recall. And with John & Ken fanning the bejesus out of the recall their panic will grow exponentially. The Republicans and RINOs are meeting this week to assess if they have any future at all left in California after getting caught with their hands deep in the tax increase cookie jar. This might be a good time for the Calguns team to suggest throwing gun owners a great big bone to keep them from jumping ship.

Arm twisting the members won't be enough. They'll lie and promise us anything, and then forget about us the second we leave the room. Arm twisting the party at this week's party meeting is where it's at. Does anyone here have access to the convention? If so you need to be there pushing or making phone calls to contacts.

BTW, this will also be our chance (2010) to vote out the RINOS and the tax and spend insiders from both parties and replace them with our pro 2nd Amendment people. But we have to strike while the iron is hot and people are pissed!

rp55
02-21-2009, 12:44 PM
While you're there, tell them that they had better get a Gubernatorial candidate that better than Poizner, Campbell or Whitman on RKBA. Right now Jerry Brown is better than any of them. I hate to vote Dem but I will not hesitate to if the Dem better than the Pub on 2A issues.

berto
02-21-2009, 3:27 PM
The party leadership needs something a little higher up than their arms twisted. They've spent the last 15 years at least wandering aimlessly and digging the hole deeper.

jnojr
02-21-2009, 4:40 PM
I've been asked to move this... The state Republican convention (http://www.cagop.org/events/) is going on this weekend and Republican leaders are in full panic mode after the budget sellout. They know their base is POed enough to vote democrat in the next election

Maybe Libertarian. Some will stay home. But, the way the GOP is going, if you're going to vote republican, you might as well vote Democrat... you'll get the same thing, but from people who are honest about bringing it to you.

I am not too far away from dropping the GOP and registering as a Libertarian. No more votes for "lesser evils" for me since 2004.

sholling
02-21-2009, 4:50 PM
Maybe Libertarian. Some will stay home. But, the way the GOP is going, if you're going to vote republican, you might as well vote Democrat... you'll get the same thing, but from people who are honest about bringing it to you.

I am not too far away from dropping the GOP and registering as a Libertarian. No more votes for "lesser evils" for me since 2004.
I dropped them years ago and registered as an independent.

Can'thavenuthingood
02-21-2009, 5:21 PM
So who is out there with Conservative thinking and actions willing to run?

Who is known?

Any Libertarians willing to relabel to Republican?

Vick

DedEye
02-21-2009, 5:29 PM
Anthony, where are you?

SchooBaka
02-21-2009, 5:41 PM
Maybe Libertarian. Some will stay home. But, the way the GOP is going, if you're going to vote republican, you might as well vote Democrat... you'll get the same thing, but from people who are honest about bringing it to you.

I am not too far away from dropping the GOP and registering as a Libertarian. No more votes for "lesser evils" for me since 2004.

:thumbsup:

Ford8N
02-21-2009, 5:42 PM
While you're there, tell them that they had better get a Gubernatorial candidate that better than Poizner, Campbell or Whitman on RKBA. Right now Jerry Brown is better than any of them. I hate to vote Dem but I will not hesitate to if the Dem better than the Pub on 2A issues.

I agree.


A hint to Republicans in California...drop the abortion issue and you will get elected.

DedEye
02-21-2009, 5:46 PM
I agree.


A hint to Republicans in California...drop the abortion issue and you will get elected.

Might want to add gay marriage to that list.

Maybe. A lot of Obama voters also voted Yes on 8.

SchooBaka
02-21-2009, 5:53 PM
So who is out there with Conservative thinking and actions willing to run?

Who is known?

Any Libertarians willing to relabel to Republican?

Vick

The Republican party has either been hijacked, or simply lost it's way.
Ron Paul stressed this point during the debates, but the rest of the Republicans up there refused to acknowledge it, as well as the Republican leadership, until after the elections.

After the first debate, Ron Paul was winning the text message poll put on by fox. My jaw hit the floor when I heard Micheal Steele say, "I don't care what the American people want, the republican party does not want Ron Paul."
Gee, guess who is now the national chairman for the Republican party. :chris:

Sorry, but the Republican party is all but dead to me.

The Republicans and the Democrats own the elections. Did you see any other party candidates in the debates? Both parties are working to further their own interests and stuff their own pockets at the expense of the American people and our way of life. Until we can break this two party stranglehold on the electoral process, things will only continue to degenerate.

Maybe Tom Mcclintock should relable himself libertarian, since he seems to be, as a conservative, a minority in his own party.

Foulball
02-21-2009, 6:04 PM
I always, always vote Libertarian. They seem to be the only party not out to screw me over. And they hate handouts.

jnojr
02-21-2009, 6:19 PM
I dropped them years ago and registered as an independent.

Unfortunately, with the way our political system has become so screwed up, a candidate for just about anything must have the support of a party. "Independent" is never going to win anything, because "Independent" consists of everyone and every political position.

Right now, the Rs and the Ds have a vise-grip on the process. Our best hope is to get the Libertarian Party to be a viable "third" party to break up the logjam.

I've remained a registered Republican so far so that I could vote for the right Republicans in the primaries. If the primaries are opened up, then I'll switch to Libertarian, unless the GOP screws things up even worse. When I get to the point of not seeing any good candidates able to get anywhere, then the GOP will have completed it's abandonment and betrayal of me, and I'll move on.

nicki
02-21-2009, 7:31 PM
Hey guys, maybe for fun we should find someone from our board who is willing to register as a Republican, and then we chip in to cover the filing fees and collect signatures so that they are on the ballot.

Great way for us to expose Calguns to the rest of the state also.

Our person probably has no chance of winning the primary, but what they do have a chance to do is send a statement to the other candidates.

We could make this fun. We create our gun specific questions and the person who is the most gun friendly, gets the support to this board.

Although this is a gun board, we would have to probably address some other issues too so that our candidate would be more than just a one issue candidate.

I figure we need to deal with some big issues also, but since our guy isn't going to win anyway, we could have fun and our person being on the ballot would force the others to deal with our issues.

Issues I see off hand other than guns.

1. Taxes and the budget.
2. Immigration
3. Roads
4. Education, schools
5. Enviroment
6. Job and business creation.
7. Crime

I think we should have nominations, hell, we should even consider a "draft".

Let's pick someone on this board who would make the Republican party leaders crap in their pants.

Imagine the shock of the Republican Party establishment if our person qualified not by paying fees, but by having enough qualified signatures to waive filing fees.

While we are at it, we should try to find someone who doesn't fit the typical gun owner mold. Ideally we need someone whom the media would be reluctant to attack for their fear of a backlash.

Our Candidate needs to be someone who has a thick skin, who isn't worried about being in the public eye, who has a sense of humor.

Our Candidate also needs to be willing to drop regular bombshells so that the press can have fun.

We have many talented people on this board and we aren't controlled by any national or state organizations that owes political favors.

I am totally unimpressed by the Republican Candidates for governor, I don't think any of them are our friends.

Nicki

Foulball
02-21-2009, 8:07 PM
I like the way you think Nicki :devil2:

nick
02-21-2009, 8:36 PM
Another great idea from Nicki. Any takers? Or do we just rant on?

PonchoTA
02-21-2009, 8:44 PM
I like the way you think Nicki :devil2:
Ditto. Maybe Gene or Bill! :D

SchooBaka
02-21-2009, 8:51 PM
I second the motion.
It's the only way we'd be able to take back the Republican party and steer it back to a course towards conservatism.
I agree that we probably won't get the votes to get our candidate into office, but it's a step in the right direction.

ldivinag
02-21-2009, 9:05 PM
vote for me:

1. pro choice? yes.
2. gay marriage? who cares... who gives a ****.
3. less government? less for me to do. ;)
4. taxes? single SALES TAX for everything. no other taxes.
5. legalize ALL drugs? yes. treat it like alcohol. DWI and DUI... get high in your own home. tax it. more revenue to the state.
6. prostitution? seems to work in NV... why not here... more tax revenue.
7. diamond lane for hybrids? HECK NO!
8. digital tv transition delays? HECK NO!
9. prisoners whining about overcrowding? F.U. dont commit any crimes. if navy dudes can live in "hot bunks" in a carrier, so can you.
10. 2nd amendment? only for hunters...












jk about #10... :)

nicki
02-21-2009, 9:15 PM
Let's make this really fun because if it is fun, we will take action.

Think of it like dropping M80's down toilets and waiting for the boom.

We have many colorful posters on this board that if we got any of them qualified that we would give the leaders of the Republican party are Coronary.

What we need is someone who would be the political equivalent of "the Joker" from the Dark Knight. Someone who didn't care, someone who would say "Hit me" and smile back.

The problem is we all are "So Serious". We need to chill, breath and have fun.

The 3 Moderate Republicans who are running for governor will sell us out, we need to send them a message that we will find our own candidate and vote for them in protest.

A "Joker" type candidate would attract media attention if the candidate created conflict and controversy everytime they opened their mouth.

Let's face, it isn't the mainstream media, it is the tabloid media, stories are emotionally driven and conflict and controversy drive ratings.

A "Joker type" candidate would say what many people feel, but are afraid to say it. Here is a example comment.

To stop the number of innocent bystanders getting killed by drive by shootings by gang members, I propose that we reform our laws regarding dueling and mutual combat and let street gangs settle their differences with armed duels either individually or in groups in designated dueling zones so as to limit carnage to voluntary participants. The state may sell rights for pay for view with those funds to be used to cover medical expenses for wounded survivors and clean up costs for disposal of dead bodies.

I figure a press release like this would really go over well:43:

There are many things the government does that pisses off alot of people on many different issues. If our candidate taps into that, we can make alot of noise.

The issue is that after the primary is over, the end result could be that Calguns would have a off the net presence and organization across the state.

After the primaries regardless of how bad we beat them up, the Moderate Republicans will kiss our *** to try to get us to help them get elected.

Nicki

lioneaglegriffin
02-21-2009, 9:54 PM
vote for me:

1. pro choice? yes.
2. gay marriage? who cares... who gives a ****.
3. less government? less for me to do. ;)
4. taxes? single SALES TAX for everything. no other taxes.
5. legalize ALL drugs? yes. treat it like alcohol. DWI and DUI... get high in your own home. tax it. more revenue to the state.
6. prostitution? seems to work in NV... why not here... more tax revenue.
7. diamond lane for hybrids? HECK NO!
8. digital tv transition delays? HECK NO!
9. prisoners whining about overcrowding? F.U. dont commit any crimes. if navy dudes can live in "hot bunks" in a carrier, so can you.
10. 2nd amendment? only for hunters...

jk about #10... :)

Nicki Said REPUBLICAN! :D

lioneaglegriffin
02-21-2009, 9:58 PM
Let's make this really fun because if it is fun, we will take action.

Think of it like dropping M80's down toilets and waiting for the boom.

We have many colorful posters on this board that if we got any of them qualified that we would give the leaders of the Republican party are Coronary.

What we need is someone who would be the political equivalent of "the Joker" from the Dark Knight. Someone who didn't care, someone who would say "Hit me" and smile back.

The problem is we all are "So Serious". We need to chill, breath and have fun.

The 3 Moderate Republicans who are running for governor will sell us out, we need to send them a message that we will find our own candidate and vote for them in protest.

A "Joker" type candidate would attract media attention if the candidate created conflict and controversy everytime they opened their mouth.

Let's face, it isn't the mainstream media, it is the tabloid media, stories are emotionally driven and conflict and controversy drive ratings.

A "Joker type" candidate would say what many people feel, but are afraid to say it. Here is a example comment.

To stop the number of innocent bystanders getting killed by drive by shootings by gang members, I propose that we reform our laws regarding dueling and mutual combat and let street gangs settle their differences with armed duels either individually or in groups in designated dueling zones so as to limit carnage to voluntary participants. The state may sell rights for pay for view with those funds to be used to cover medical expenses for wounded survivors and clean up costs for disposal of dead bodies.

I figure a press release like this would really go over well:43:

There are many things the government does that pisses off alot of people on many different issues. If our candidate taps into that, we can make alot of noise.

The issue is that after the primary is over, the end result could be that Calguns would have a off the net presence and organization across the state.

After the primaries regardless of how bad we beat them up, the Moderate Republicans will kiss our *** to try to get us to help them get elected.

Nicki

A Republican Heath Ledger Joker! :eek:

I say DEW IT! :43:

Captain Evilstomper
02-21-2009, 10:01 PM
They'll lie and promise us anything, and then forget about us the second we leave the room.

maybe i'm jaded, but how is this different?
aren't most politicians like this?

nick
02-21-2009, 11:33 PM
maybe i'm jaded, but how is this different?
aren't most politicians like this?

Yes, because they're allowed to get away with it.

CCWFacts
02-21-2009, 11:45 PM
I second the motion.

I think it's a cool idea, but the problem is that non-viable candidates tend to get labeled as jokes. "Aren't you the guy that tried to run for governor on the gun nut platform? Ha ha, is that a gun in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?" That's what I would worry about.

DDT
02-22-2009, 12:06 AM
A Republican Heath Ledger Joker!

I'd vote for a dead guy in a minute. Dead men pass no laws.

Kestryll
02-22-2009, 12:29 AM
A hint to Republicans in California...drop the abortion issue and you will get elected.

Do that and lose much of your base.

I would never vote Republican again if they did that.

PonchoTA
02-22-2009, 10:13 AM
Do that and lose much of your base.

I would never vote Republican again if they did that.
I think he meant to stop making it such a central issue. Of course it will come up, just like the Prop 8 issue will come up as well. But a median standing on those, plus strong other conservative values such as less gov't, more individual freedom, lower taxes and a PLAN to put it INTO ACTION (!!!!!!!!) would go a long way in revitalizing the base, I think.

I'm more conservative too, but I never bought into this whole "every life is sacred" bull****. I'll probably get a bunch of razzing for this, but I don't believe that abortion should be outlawed, I think sometimes that WOULD be a better choice. I don't think that it should be used as birth control though. To outlaw it would force women to chase down the alley doctors again, because they still would pursue it.

I just want my 'representatives' to do just that, represent me, not try and pad their pocket, or boost themselves into better paying, more powerful jobs. I hate the fact that Congress, and even the state's legislatures have turned into money-grubbing machines.

Same for the Dept. of Ed. That is one of the single largest wastes of funding, EVER!! Disband them completely! I know it will never happen though, because their unions have gotten so entrenched and such a big bucket of money for the Dems, that we'll never be able to get rid of them. :(

Totally useless, like tits on a bullfrog. They are the reason that only about $0.20 per dollar actually gets TO the classrooms, they have to pay for all that bureaucracy. It's for the chiiiiillllllddddrrrun!!!!

:mad::cuss:

If the Republican party would put some heart into their campaigns, say what they mean and mean what they say, and stop trying to outdo the Dems on corruption and wrongdoing, they would start winning districts back.

.

jnojr
02-22-2009, 12:37 PM
Do that and lose much of your base.

I would never vote Republican again if they did that.

...and a great deal of what could be Republican support isn't because of stands on issues like this.

California does not want an abortion ban. Period. So, your choice is to either let that fact continue to hand the state over to the Democrats, or to suck it up, realize you aren't going to get what you want on that issue, and accept what you can get on other issues.

There are a bunch of states that will ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. California is not one of them, and isn't ever likely to be one. That's just the way it is.

When you insist you must have A, B, and C, you wind up with nothing.

nicki
02-22-2009, 4:32 PM
My problem with the Republican party is not that they are pro life, rather it is how the message is twisted by the Pro abortion side.

While I strongly believe individuals own their own bodies and have a right to make choices, good or bad, your right to control your own body doesn't include killing someone else because you wanted freedom without responsibility for one's actions.

I agree with posters on this board that Californians are pro choice on abortion, but being pro choice on abortion doesn't make someone pro abortion.

We could significantly reduce the number of abortions in this state with modest laws which most Californians would support.

I think the number of people who are "Pro Abortion" and by that I mean people who support allowing third trimester abortions, on demand abortions, teenage abortions without parental consent, and partial birth abortions for example are small in number.

The Abortion issue isn't the only issue that the Republicans are screwing themselves up with.

It is too bad the Republican party couldn't learn from the Libertarians or from this board to work on core common issues and agree to disagree.

Absolutists get absolutely nothing. I'd rather have 70 percent of what I want than 0 percent.

As long as I am moving forward, I'll compromise:43:

Nicki

DDT
02-22-2009, 4:53 PM
Unless someone is using a gun to perform an abortion let's leave abortion off this board.

Kestryll
02-22-2009, 4:58 PM
California does not want an abortion ban. Period. So, your choice is to either let that fact continue to hand the state over to the Democrats, or to suck it up, realize you aren't going to get what you want on that issue, and accept what you can get on other issues.
What other issues should I abandon because they might not be popular?
Gun rights?
Okay, Next Friday will be the last day of Calguns.
Most people in California don't give a damn about gun rights, might as well suck it up and realize we're not going to win.
It's been fun..
But we're going to lose anyway...

When you insist you must have A, B, and C, you wind up with nothing.
When you become willing to sacrifice A and B then C will soon follow.
Either you stand on your beliefs and convictions or you mortgage them away one at a time.

I'm a bit surprise to see which one you're advocating.

bwiese
02-22-2009, 5:05 PM
Abortion is far more of an electoral issue in CA than guns. Continiual surveys put 'choice' as #1 - #3 issue in electorate concerns. Guns (separated from crime issue) are always at least #6 or #7 on the list and often far lower.

You can readily elect a person waving a bag of dead babies and who advocates full auto suppressed CCWs.

You cannot elect (except in limited areas) a person advocating abortion bans and yet who advocates gun control.

Substitute guns for any other issue (fiscal policy, schools, etc.) and you can see why most Republicans are not winning office in CA other than certain local districts.

Alienating 1/2 your voter base - women - for a 100% dead losing issue is just plain stupid, esp given the clear court support for it. Electoral and court reversion of 'choice' is a completely dead issue in CA - and pretty much nationally -and cannot be compared with the battle for gunrights. There will be no decision overturning Roe - the very converse of Heller locking in RKBA.

As for the Republicans 'losing their base' in CA, they better lose whatver's stopping them from winning - and that's part of the issue. That 'base' has shrunken so much in size it's not in "base" weight class anymore.

DedEye
02-22-2009, 5:46 PM
Abortion is far more of an electoral issue in CA than guns. Continiual surveys put 'choice' as #1 - #3 issue in electorate concerns. Guns (separated from crime issue) are always at least #6 or #7 on the list and often far lower.

You can readily elect a person waving a bag of dead babies and who advocates full auto suppressed CCWs.

You cannot elect (except in limited areas) a person advocating abortion bans and yet who advocates gun control.

Substitute guns for any other issue (fiscal policy, schools, etc.) and you can see why most Republicans are not winning office in CA other than certain local districts.

Alienating 1/2 your voter base - women - for a 100% dead losing issue is just plain stupid, esp given the clear court support for it. Electoral and court reversion of 'choice' is a completely dead issue in CA - and pretty much nationally -and cannot be compared with the battle for gunrights. There will be no decision overturning Roe - the very converse of Heller locking in RKBA.

As for the Republicans 'losing their base' in CA, they better lose whatver's stopping them from winning - and that's part of the issue. That 'base' has shrunken so much in size it's not in "base" weight class anymore.

That about sums it up.

I'd love to see a more viable Republican party. If that meant dropping some of the third rail moral issues to appeal to a broader audience, so be it.

I'm certainly biased though, so keep that in mind.

lioneaglegriffin
02-22-2009, 7:57 PM
Abortion is far more of an electoral issue in CA than guns. Continiual surveys put 'choice' as #1 - #3 issue in electorate concerns. Guns (separated from crime issue) are always at least #6 or #7 on the list and often far lower.

You can readily elect a person waving a bag of dead babies and who advocates full auto suppressed CCWs.

You cannot elect (except in limited areas) a person advocating abortion bans and yet who advocates gun control.

Substitute guns for any other issue (fiscal policy, schools, etc.) and you can see why most Republicans are not winning office in CA other than certain local districts.

Alienating 1/2 your voter base - women - for a 100% dead losing issue is just plain stupid, esp given the clear court support for it. Electoral and court reversion of 'choice' is a completely dead issue in CA - and pretty much nationally -and cannot be compared with the battle for gunrights. There will be no decision overturning Roe - the very converse of Heller locking in RKBA.

As for the Republicans 'losing their base' in CA, they better lose whatver's stopping them from winning - and that's part of the issue. That 'base' has shrunken so much in size it's not in "base" weight class anymore.

the moral issues stuff may have worked for sarah palin in wasilla but it won't fly down here. I don't care out abortion or gay marriage either way. I personally wouldn't allow either but i'm not gonna tell others what is right for them. im not a fiscal conservate or a Small goverment advocate or moral advocate so long as there is order im fine. Im a Conservate Democrat but i will vote for a republican if the dem is uber liberal.

sholling
02-22-2009, 8:06 PM
Abortion is far more of an electoral issue in CA than guns. Continiual surveys put 'choice' as #1 - #3 issue in electorate concerns. Guns (separated from crime issue) are always at least #6 or #7 on the list and often far lower.

You can readily elect a person waving a bag of dead babies and who advocates full auto suppressed CCWs.

You cannot elect (except in limited areas) a person advocating abortion bans and yet who advocates gun control.

Substitute guns for any other issue (fiscal policy, schools, etc.) and you can see why most Republicans are not winning office in CA other than certain local districts.

Alienating 1/2 your voter base - women - for a 100% dead losing issue is just plain stupid, esp given the clear court support for it. Electoral and court reversion of 'choice' is a completely dead issue in CA - and pretty much nationally -and cannot be compared with the battle for gunrights. There will be no decision overturning Roe - the very converse of Heller locking in RKBA.

As for the Republicans 'losing their base' in CA, they better lose whatver's stopping them from winning - and that's part of the issue. That 'base' has shrunken so much in size it's not in "base" weight class anymore.
I agree with you. The republican party has become the "Church Lady" party. Blocking abortion, gay marriage, and any other non-church approved recreation are high on their list. The 2nd Amendment, fiscal responsibility, and freedom have left their radar completely.

bulgron
02-22-2009, 8:22 PM
What would it take to assume control of the Republican party's platform in California enough to get them off these disastrous social issues? Would it take just way too much money, or is it a question of pure numbers?

sholling
02-22-2009, 8:40 PM
What would it take to assume control of the Republican party's platform in California enough to get them off these disastrous social issues? Would it take just way too much money, or is it a question of pure numbers?
One word ----> Fear. Fear of losing even more seats and having even less power. But even that might not do it because the leaders of both parties are fanatics, fanatics safe from losing their leadership roles. It's not like rank and file republicans pick the party leaders. Have you ever been asked your opinion about who should run the party? Did you get to cast a vote for party chairman? I didn't think so. It's an unelected group of party insiders with no accountability whatsoever to rank and file Republicans. The ultimate old boy network. You have no more say over who will be the Republican Party's leadership or Republican party policies than the average 1960s Russian had over who the Communist Party's leaders were, or over what the party's policies were.

The donkeys are in the same boat. They have no say over their party leadership either. Each party's unelected leaders essentially appoint the party's candidate for each office and gerrymandering predestines which party will win what seat. This has to change!

yellowfin
02-23-2009, 12:33 AM
I heard Micheal Steele say, "I don't care what the American people want, the republican party does not want Ron Paul."
Gee, guess who is now the national chairman for the Republican party. .I am done with the R party if that is in fact the case. That kind of garbage is intolerable.

If we don't have any say in the parties, what good are they? How in the heck can they expect us to want to have anything to do with them?

nicki
02-23-2009, 1:00 AM
What would it take to assume control of the Republican party's platform in California enough to get them off these disastrous social issues? Would it take just way too much money, or is it a question of pure numbers?
__________________




Probably a combination of both. The areas where party participation is weak is in Dem controlled areas and that is where we could gain control if we have numbers.

The party has a hard time even finding candidates to run in some districts.

Nicki

hvengel
02-23-2009, 10:33 AM
One word ----> ...Each party's unelected leaders essentially appoint the party's candidate for each office and gerrymandering predestines which party will win what seat. This has to change!

Gerrymandering has been a significant contributer to the issue of unaccountable political parties in the PRK. Only a few years ago PRK voters rejected taking redistricting out of the hands of the legislature but a similar law passed in the last election. So it appears that more voters are "getting it". I am somewhat hopeful that this change will end gerrymandering starting with the 2012 election. I think this will help make the political parties more accountable but it may be too little too late.

Cypren
02-23-2009, 10:48 AM
I am somewhat hopeful that this change will end gerrymandering starting with the 2012 election.

Don't bet on that. All it will do is move political pressure from the redistricting sessions in the legislature to the choice of the judges who sit on the redistricting panel.

sholling
02-23-2009, 10:55 AM
Gerrymandering has been a significant contributer to the issue of unaccountable political parties in the PRK. Only a few years ago PRK voters rejected taking redistricting out of the hands of the legislature but a similar law passed in the last election. So it appears that more voters are "getting it". I am somewhat hopeful that this change will end gerrymandering starting with the 2012 election. I think this will help make the political parties more accountable but it may be too little too late.
I agree and have supported redistricting since the 80s. The press and James Garner's "republican power grab" commercials defeated it the first time, and union money the second, and we only won this time by 1%.

But it goes deeper. The lack of member control of the parties and the two party stranglehold means that it doesn't matter of it's a donkey or an elephant we get screwed. It's all a big game of fool the voters with the press and the teachers in charge of disinformation.

FK300
02-23-2009, 11:55 AM
Notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma : All counties were won by McCain/Palin.

INTERESTING FACTS -----

Some unreported stats about the 2008 election.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul ,Minnesota , points out interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30

-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000

-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million

-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1

***** Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the landowned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living inrented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

***** Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

gd-bh
02-23-2009, 12:06 PM
Notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma : All counties were won by McCain/Palin.

INTERESTING FACTS -----

Some unreported stats about the 2008 election.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul ,Minnesota , points out interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30

-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000

-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million

-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1

***** Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the landowned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living inrented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

***** Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

See anything similar here: linky (http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp)

DDT
02-23-2009, 12:29 PM
It's amazing that the stats in 2000 were identical to those in 2008.

DedEye
02-23-2009, 1:10 PM
Notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma : All counties were won by McCain/Palin.

INTERESTING FACTS -----

Some unreported stats about the 2008 election.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul ,Minnesota , points out interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30

-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000

-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million

-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1

***** Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Republicans won was mostly the landowned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living inrented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

***** Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

:icon_bs:

He should really have included a couple more figures in his statistics, such as amounted of taxes paid, median income, etc.

Biased much (Olson, not you)?

Cypren
02-23-2009, 2:24 PM
:icon_bs:

He should really have included a couple more figures in his statistics, such as amounted of taxes paid, median income, etc.

Biased much (Olson, not you)?

Olson wasn't the source of the figures. Like basically every other e-mail forward, this is all anonymous information, most of it incorrect. And as someone pointed out earlier, someone just copied the (likewise erroneous) 2000 email and changed the date to 2008.

Unless John McCain really won the election and the media covered it up... :TFH:

DedEye
02-23-2009, 3:00 PM
Olson wasn't the source of the figures. Like basically every other e-mail forward, this is all anonymous information, most of it incorrect. And as someone pointed out earlier, someone just copied the (likewise erroneous) 2000 email and changed the date to 2008.

Unless John McCain really won the election and the media covered it up... :TFH:

Ah, I didn't understand DDT's post about that :o.

7x57
02-23-2009, 3:42 PM
I mostly refuse to reply to abortion posts here--it isn't why I'm here, and I don't ask gunnies about that issue any more than I ask either the National Right To Life Committee or Planned Parenthood about guns.

However, I might say one thing to goad gunnies into action: one reason abortion stays on the Republican agenda is that much of the hard grass-roots work gets done by people who support the party first of all for that issue. Gunnies don't turn out people who will walk precincts, knock on doors, call supporters on election day, man phone banks, or any of that.

Without getting into abortion specifically, what I am saying is that voter numbers aren't the only thing that matter--committment also matters. If the Republican turn-out had been at normal levels, McCain would likely have won the election. But many R's stayed home. And turn-out depends a great deal on hard work by local volunteers. That's how much the "ground game" matters. I actually believe that the party leadership doesn't actually care about the abortion issue, but they know that if they drop it the phone banks will be empty next election. You can't only win by appealing to the mass of voters--you also must appeal to the people willing to work hard enough to help turn out the mass of voters.

That brings me to the point: gunnies don't seem to volunteer for the hard work. Do I know this? Not really, but I can tell you that when I spent two weekends in Nevada campaigning for the Palin ticket McCain ticket, I met no other vocal gun rights people there. Most were quite tolerant on the issue, but it wasn't personally important to them. I got absolutely no flack for wearing an NRA hat, for example, even going door-to-door. Some were quite interested in what I said, and I had some interesting conversations, but it wasn't what brought them out. Same experience at local Republican HQ; there were probably gunnies there, but I didn't hear about it. But again the people I saw were not at all hostile--at one point during a debate (I actually watched one or two at the HQ), when Obama said something about rights, I said aloud "what about our Second Amendment rights" and got an appreciative nod from a man in a business suit nearby. I suspect he's not a hard-core 2A guy, though he might do some wingshooting or something, but at a minimum he was friendly.

I would guess that even the "three percenter" wing, people who talk seriously about being willing to take up arms to defend the 2A, will not volunteer twenty hours in an election cycle to make phone calls, knock on doors, and get out the vote on election day. Most agree that one must exhaust "all legal/peaceful means" before one can ethically resort to self-defense against government oppression. Have you exhausted "all legal means" if you won't play the ground game of democracy?

That was just to set up a challenge: if you want gun rights issues to be important to the party leaders, learn something from the Right-To-Live movement and figure out how to be important to your party. If you want to be important beyond your numbers, then work to become someone they rely on. When they're counting on your help, you can bet that they'll start to listen to what makes you come work for them.

BTW, I suspect that this requires more foresight than most people are willing to go to. It probably requires turning out for candidates you don't particularly like so that the party begins to notice that you're a reliable and valuable source of front-line troops. In other words, you may have to build credibility before you have a voice. I suspect most gunnies are incapable of doing it that way instead of demanding what they want first, so I don't know why I'm writing this. Because I think it's true, I guess, even if infeasible.

I guess I should also add that in theory this isn't limited to the Republican party, it would just take vastly more work to get to the point where the Democrats think they need you.

7x57

sholling
02-23-2009, 4:01 PM
However, I might say one thing to goad gunnies into action: one reason abortion stays on the Republican agenda is that much of the hard grass-roots work gets done by people who support the party first of all for that issue. Gunnies don't turn out people who will walk precincts, knock on doors, call supporters on election day, man phone banks, or any of that.

That brings me to the point: gunnies don't seem to volunteer for the hard work.

I would guess that even the "three percenter" wing, people who talk seriously about being willing to take up arms to defend the 2A, will not volunteer twenty hours in an election cycle to make phone calls, knock on doors, and get out the vote on election day. Most agree that one must exhaust "all legal/peaceful means" before one can ethically resort to self-defense against government oppression. Have you exhausted "all legal means" if you won't play the ground game of democracy?
7x57 is 100% correct in what he says. As a wise man once said getting gun owners organized to defend their rights is like herding cats. They will not get out and knock on doors unless they can do it wearing a Death From Above t-shirt over camo pants. Gun owners are also too cheap to join the NRA much less donate money to a candidate or help with fundraisers. We write letters to gun magazines complaining about one sided TV news coverage instead of complaining to the news station and newspapers. We make it easy for the other side.

Cypren
02-23-2009, 4:14 PM
They will not get out and knock on doors unless they can do it wearing a Death From Above t-shirt over camo pants.

This is exactly right. Firearms enthusiasts have a serious image problem in America, and it's only getting worse as the arbiters of popular culture feel more free to portray us all as hicks, rednecks and blood-crazed lunatics. We only compound the problem when we employ morbid humor (like bloody smiley T-shirts and other violent symbols), which may seem ridiculously funny to us given the care with which we treat our weapons but feed right into the fears of the public.

Every time we go out in public we are ambassadors for the entire RKBA community, whether they know we're packing or not. When people find out I shoot, they're usually surprised, and I often get comments like, "I never would have pegged you for the type." And that's exactly the reaction I want to elicit, shaking up the stereotype. The more respectable, professional and serious we seem, the less ammunition we feed to our opposition.

There may be millions of us with guns, but there are tens of millions of people out there who are terrified of them. We have two choices in the long run: we can reason with them or we can shoot them. People who actively work to agitate the fearful instead of calm them are advocating for option #2 whether they know it or not.